F Ting1,2,3, M Tran1,2,3, M Böhm2, A Siriwardana1,2,3, P J Van Leeuwen1,2, A M Haynes2, W Delprado4, R Shnier5, P D Stricker1,2,3. 1. St Vincent's Prostate Cancer Centre, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia. 2. Garvan Institute of Medical Research/The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia. 3. School of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 4. Douglass Hanly Moir Pathology, Macquarie Park, NSW, Australia. 5. Southern Radiology, Randwick, NSW, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current data on the use of irreversible electroporation (IRE) in the treatment of prostate cancer (PCa) is limited. We aim to evaluate the safety, short-term functional and oncological outcomes of focal IRE in low-intermediate risk PCa. METHODS: Between February 2013 and May 2014, 32 consecutive men underwent IRE at a single centre. Patients with low-intermediate risk PCa who had not received previous PCa treatment were included for analysis. The tumour was ablated using 3-6 electrodes, ensuring a minimum 5-mm safety margin around the visible magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) lesion. Follow-up included recording Clavien complications, Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) questionnaires (baseline, 1.5, 3, 6 months), 6-month multi-parametric MRI (mp-MRI) and 7-month biopsy. Findings on mp-MRI and biopsy were sub-divided into infield, adjacent or outfield of the treatment zone. RESULTS: Twenty-five men were included for final analysis. Safety follow-up revealed one Clavien Grade 3 complication and five Grade 1 complications. Functional follow-up confirmed no significant change in American Urological Association urinary symptom score, sexual or bowel function. Infield, there were no suspicious findings on mp-MRI (n=24) or biopsy (n=21) in all patients. Adjacent to the treatment zone, five (21%) had suspicious findings on mp-MRI with four (19%) proving to be significant on biopsy. Outfield, there were two (8%) with suspicious findings on mp-MRI and one (5%) significant finding on biopsy. For the five patients with significant findings on follow-up biopsy, one is awaiting repeat IRE, one had radical prostatectomy and three remained on active surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: In selected patients with low-intermediate risk PCa, focal IRE appears to be safe with minimal morbidity. There were no infield recurrences and 76% of patients were histologically free of significant cancer at 8 months. Almost all recurrences were adjacent to the treatment zone, and this was addressed by widening the treatment margins.
BACKGROUND: Current data on the use of irreversible electroporation (IRE) in the treatment of prostate cancer (PCa) is limited. We aim to evaluate the safety, short-term functional and oncological outcomes of focal IRE in low-intermediate risk PCa. METHODS: Between February 2013 and May 2014, 32 consecutive men underwent IRE at a single centre. Patients with low-intermediate risk PCa who had not received previous PCa treatment were included for analysis. The tumour was ablated using 3-6 electrodes, ensuring a minimum 5-mm safety margin around the visible magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) lesion. Follow-up included recording Clavien complications, Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) questionnaires (baseline, 1.5, 3, 6 months), 6-month multi-parametric MRI (mp-MRI) and 7-month biopsy. Findings on mp-MRI and biopsy were sub-divided into infield, adjacent or outfield of the treatment zone. RESULTS: Twenty-five men were included for final analysis. Safety follow-up revealed one Clavien Grade 3 complication and five Grade 1 complications. Functional follow-up confirmed no significant change in American Urological Association urinary symptom score, sexual or bowel function. Infield, there were no suspicious findings on mp-MRI (n=24) or biopsy (n=21) in all patients. Adjacent to the treatment zone, five (21%) had suspicious findings on mp-MRI with four (19%) proving to be significant on biopsy. Outfield, there were two (8%) with suspicious findings on mp-MRI and one (5%) significant finding on biopsy. For the five patients with significant findings on follow-up biopsy, one is awaiting repeat IRE, one had radical prostatectomy and three remained on active surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: In selected patients with low-intermediate risk PCa, focal IRE appears to be safe with minimal morbidity. There were no infield recurrences and 76% of patients were histologically free of significant cancer at 8 months. Almost all recurrences were adjacent to the treatment zone, and this was addressed by widening the treatment margins.
Authors: Vincenzo Ficarra; Giacomo Novara; Thomas E Ahlering; Anthony Costello; James A Eastham; Markus Graefen; Giorgio Guazzoni; Mani Menon; Alexandre Mottrie; Vipul R Patel; Henk Van der Poel; Raymond C Rosen; Ashutosh K Tewari; Timothy G Wilson; Filiberto Zattoni; Francesco Montorsi Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-06-01 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Robert E Neal; Jeremy L Millar; Helen Kavnoudias; Peter Royce; Franklin Rosenfeldt; Alan Pham; Ryan Smith; Rafael V Davalos; Kenneth R Thomson Journal: Prostate Date: 2014-01-17 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: Vincenzo Ficarra; Giacomo Novara; Raymond C Rosen; Walter Artibani; Peter R Carroll; Anthony Costello; Mani Menon; Francesco Montorsi; Vipul R Patel; Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg; Henk Van der Poel; Timothy G Wilson; Filiberto Zattoni; Alexandre Mottrie Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-06-01 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: James E Thompson; Daniel Moses; Ron Shnier; Phillip Brenner; Warick Delprado; Lee Ponsky; Marley Pulbrook; Maret Böhm; Anne-Maree Haynes; Andrew Hayen; Phillip D Stricker Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-02-08 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Ian A Donaldson; Roberto Alonzi; Dean Barratt; Eric Barret; Viktor Berge; Simon Bott; David Bottomley; Scott Eggener; Behfar Ehdaie; Mark Emberton; Richard Hindley; Tom Leslie; Alec Miners; Neil McCartan; Caroline M Moore; Peter Pinto; Thomas J Polascik; Lucy Simmons; Jan van der Meulen; Arnauld Villers; Sarah Willis; Hashim U Ahmed Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-10-01 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Matthijs J Scheltema; John I Chang; Willemien van den Bos; Ilan Gielchinsky; Tuan V Nguyen; Theo de M Reijke; Amila R Siriwardana; Maret Böhm; Jean J de la Rosette; Phillip D Stricker Journal: Diagn Interv Radiol Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 2.630
Authors: A Antal; I Alekseichuk; M Bikson; J Brockmöller; A R Brunoni; R Chen; L G Cohen; G Dowthwaite; J Ellrich; A Flöel; F Fregni; M S George; R Hamilton; J Haueisen; C S Herrmann; F C Hummel; J P Lefaucheur; D Liebetanz; C K Loo; C D McCaig; C Miniussi; P C Miranda; V Moliadze; M A Nitsche; R Nowak; F Padberg; A Pascual-Leone; W Poppendieck; A Priori; S Rossi; P M Rossini; J Rothwell; M A Rueger; G Ruffini; K Schellhorn; H R Siebner; Y Ugawa; A Wexler; U Ziemann; M Hallett; W Paulus Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2017-06-19 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Stefan Fritz; Christof M Sommer; Thomas Longerich; Clemens Kuhn-Neureuther; Boris Radeleff; Jens Werner; Thilo Hackert Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2017-04-04 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: R Ganzer; T Franiel; J Köllermann; T Kuru; D Baumunk; A Blana; B Hadaschik; J von Hardenberg; T Henkel; K-U Köhrmann; U-B Liehr; S Machtens; A Roosen; G Salomon; H-P Schlemmer; L Sentker; J Wendler; U Witzsch; M Schostak Journal: Urologe A Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: Matthijs J Scheltema; Arnoud W Postema; Daniel M de Bruin; Mara Buijs; Marc R Engelbrecht; M Pilar Laguna; Hessel Wijkstra; Theo M de Reijke; Jean J M C H de la Rosette Journal: Diagn Interv Radiol Date: 2017 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.630
Authors: J J Wendler; R Ganzer; B Hadaschik; A Blana; T Henkel; K U Köhrmann; S Machtens; A Roosen; G Salomon; L Sentker; U Witzsch; H P Schlemmer; D Baumunk; J Köllermann; M Schostak; U B Liehr Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-05-04 Impact factor: 4.226